Context7
Up-to-date docs for AI agents
作者提供的说明(英文原文)
Durable user/project memory for MCP clients: recall context and remember selected facts.
这三项永远不会合并成一个分数:意见、测量和人气是不同的东西。
我们还没有为它写通俗的介绍。下面是我们从注册中心读取到的事实。
选择你使用的 AI 应用,然后复制设置。
你需要
你用的是哪个应用?
在上方选择你的应用。我们会记住它,下次按钮会显示“安装到 …”。
打开 Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config,把下面的内容粘贴到 claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"goodmemory": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"goodmemory",
"mcp",
"serve",
"--user-id",
"{user_id}"
]
}
}
}在终端中运行这条命令
claude mcp add goodmemory -- npx -y goodmemory mcp serve --user-id '{user_id}'粘贴到项目中的 .cursor/mcp.json,或 ~/.cursor/mcp.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"goodmemory": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"goodmemory",
"mcp",
"serve",
"--user-id",
"{user_id}"
]
}
}
}浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。
粘贴到项目中的 .vscode/mcp.json
{
"servers": {
"goodmemory": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"goodmemory",
"mcp",
"serve",
"--user-id",
"{user_id}"
]
}
}
}浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。
这个服务器在你的电脑上运行,而 ChatGPT 只能连接互联网上的服务器。请选择其他应用。
你的选择通过 Cookie 保存在这台设备上,无需账户。
这些设置是根据作者在注册中心的条目生成的。如果 README 的写法不同,请以 README 为准。
它在你的电脑上运行;安装后,工具列表会显示在你的 AI 应用中。
我们检查的是任何人都能看到的信息;我们没有阅读代码。不适用的检查项不计入总数。 · 检查于 2026年11月6日
注册名称已通过 GitHub 账户 hjqcan 验证,该账户拥有此仓库
我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库
我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库
它在你的电脑上运行,没有互联网端点
在你的电脑上运行,改用本地设置
它在你的电脑上运行;我们只能读取互联网端点的工具列表
与注册中心里这个分类中所有活跃的服务器比较。只有当发布者拥有该仓库时,星标数才计入。
它在 1 项适用的基础检查中通过了 1 项。我们没有阅读代码。在添加密钥或令牌之前,请先看看这个服务器要求哪些权限,并使用只具备所需权限的密钥。
注册中心没有列出必需的密钥,不过有些服务器会在首次使用时要求你登录。
它在你的电脑上运行。你的 AI 应用会在需要时启动它,数据不会经过作者的服务器(除非它自己调用在线服务)。
GitHub 仓库最后更新于–,最新版本(0.7.5)于3个月前进入注册中心。
支持 MCP 的应用,例如 Claude Desktop、Claude Code、Cursor 和 VS Code。你的电脑上还需要有 Node.js。
同一分类中有:Context7, Codebase Memory, Exa
同一分类中其他作者的服务器,按星标数排序。
如何看卡片:★ GitHub 星标i三大支柱:评价 · 检查 · 使用情况i更新 = 最新版本发布到注册中心的时间i
Up-to-date docs for AI agents
Codebase knowledge graph for AI agents — 162 languages, sub-ms queries, 99% fewer tokens.
Connect AI agents to Exa for web search, content fetching, and multi-step research.
按原文从作者的仓库复制。PopNx MCP 没有审查或背书其内容。HTML、图片和脚本已被移除。链接会离开本站。
Language: English | 简体中文
GoodMemory is a memory layer for AI products and coding agents.
Release source: this source targets the
0.8.3stable release.
Registry commands require
goodmemory@0.8.3to be published. The release
workflow verifies npm
latestand the already published GitHub assets
against the locally prepared manifest; it does not rebuild or publish.
It gives chat apps, copilots, and agent hosts a durable user/project memory loop: write selected facts, retrieve the right context, inject it into the next turn, audit what happened, and delete it when it is wrong.
GoodMemory is not an LLM, agent framework, vector database, or generic RAG system. It is the product memory layer between your app or installed agent host and the model runtime.
remember, recall, buildContext, feedback, forget, exportMemory, importMemory, and deleteAllMemory.goodmemory setup, managed hooks, installed Codex pre-action, goodmemory status, read-only MCP, and opt-in writeback.GoodMemoryConfig.remember, RememberProfile, rememberRules, RememberInput.annotations, and named extractor ids.goodmemory, goodmemory/ai-sdk, goodmemory/host, and goodmemory/http through compiled dist artifacts and TypeScript declarations.Pre-existing foundation. GoodMemory existed before OpenAI Build Week. The pre-event foundation already included the core memory API, local SQLite/Postgres storage, installed-host integration, and the local Inspector. The hackathon entry is the work added after the submission period opened on July 13, 2026, not the entire repository.
Added during Build Week. Dated commits completed and published v0.6.0, strengthened generalized retrieval and iterative-recall verification, added claim-source provenance coverage, hardened installed-host canaries and leakage audits, and expanded the controlled Codex coding-effect evaluation path. Review the pre-event-to-Build-Week diff and its dated commit history for the exact boundary.
How Codex and GPT-5.6 were used. Codex with GPT-5.6 was the primary implementation and verification environment: exploring the repository, implementing and reviewing changes, writing regression tests, reproducing installed-host behavior, and exercising the release and coding-effect evidence paths. GPT-5.6 also powers disclosed non-judge model calls in current evaluation profiles; public-claim paths either use deterministic scoring or keep the judge independent from the answer model.
Run and verify. After publication, install 0.8.3 from the registry and inspect its local memory surface:
npm install -g goodmemory@0.8.3
goodmemory setup --host codex goodmemory status codex --workspace-root . goodmemory inspector serve
Verify the repository from source with bun install --frozen-lockfile, bun test, and bun run typecheck. See the Devpost submission and public demo video.
Claim boundary: the submission demonstrates durable cross-session memory, governed writeback, recall evidence, and inspection/deletion infrastructure. It does not claim that GoodMemory has already proven an improvement in Codex coding outcomes; that paired hidden-test evaluation remains an active, fail-closed evidence track.
npm install -g goodmemory@0.8.3
goodmemory setup
No account or hosted service is required. GoodMemory stores memory locally in SQLite by default, wires lifecycle hooks plus read-only MCP inspection, and keeps durable writeback opt-in. Verify the installation with goodmemory status.
Using another MCP client or integrating an application? Choose an integration path.
GoodMemory separates current-production claims, versioned historical evidence, and internal research. A number may enter the current-claims table only after gate:public-benchmark-claim --strict validates a committed declaration for the current package version: complete coverage, executionFailures: 0, a no-memory baseline, deterministic scoring or an independent judge, verified dataset source and license, and a reproducible run (commit + command + package version). No end-to-end benchmark runner is allowlisted today, so promotion is unavailable for both current and historical rows. Stored-answer rescores and legacy presentation projections cannot open that boundary or supply README score and disclosure fragments as self-attestation.
GoodMemory 0.8.3 has no current or versioned historical benchmark claim. The retained v0.7.3 LoCoMo projection is not end-to-end runner evidence, so it is an internal diagnostic. The v0.6.0 LoCoMo, BEAM, and MemoryAgentBench measurements and ImplicitMemBench are also internal diagnostics under the same fail-closed boundary. LongMemEval is withdrawn pending a clean rerun: the historical rules-only path used answer annotations, and the later label-free path exposed raw answer_* session IDs to retrieval and the reader. ImplicitMemBench's retry-merged result remains internal evidence because it does not replace a monolithic fresh run. HaluMem, MemGym, and MINTEval remain release evidence rather than public benchmark claims.
No benchmark result is currently presented as measured on 0.8.3.
No end-to-end benchmark runner is currently allowlisted for versioned evidence.
No benchmark result currently qualifies as versioned historical evidence.
The retained v0.7.3 LoCoMo projection remains available in the repository for audit, but it is not shipped as a verified package artifact and cannot authorize a public or versioned claim. Old artifacts will not be retrofitted; a future producer and its verifier must be implemented together before promotion opens.
Where both are available, a row reports two tracks. The strict track is deterministic or judge-free — a hard lower bound no LLM judge can inflate. The second track re-judges the *same stored answers* (not regenerated) under a benchmark-source or industry-standard prompt. Numerical comparability is claimed only when the pinned evaluator model and remaining benchmark configuration also match. Every per-protocol detail is recorded in the linked declarations.
The LongMemEval declaration is now paused_boundary, not historical evidence. Its old numeric artifacts remain only to preserve the audit trail. They must not be quoted as GoodMemory results until an opaque-session-id, label-free full rerun replaces them; see the withdrawal declaration. The v0.6.0 BEAM, MemoryAgentBench, and LoCoMo measurements remain internal diagnostics. They do not pass the empty end-to-end runner allowlist, so they are not versioned historical evidence.
The ImplicitMemBench Full-300 stored-answer rescore uses the canonical zero-failure run-phase61-full300-rerun-20260706-codex-current answers, then re-scores the same stored answers with gpt-5.4 (sourceAnswersUnchanged: true). The judge is cross-version but the same GPT family as the gpt-5.5 answer model, not a cross-family judge. The recorded score is 0.691 (207.35/300) versus an upstream-chat baseline of 0.400 (120/300), with 530 judge-required row decisions across the baseline and GoodMemory arms; deterministic structured_first_action rows are carried forward rather than judged. The older same-model diagnostic score was 0.708 and is not the recorded result. The freshest clean answer-regeneration drift check after recent code changes scored 0.6895 with executionFailures: 0; it shows current checkout drift, not a replacement for the stored-answer comparability artifact. Its measured sources do not independently expose both package version and commit at explicit JSON paths, so the result is paused as an internal diagnostic and is not versioned historical evidence. Dataset CC BY 4.0, fetched at eval time, never vendored.
LongMemEval's first current-recall assembly development slice is superseded: although its reader context hid raw session IDs, the memory-builder boundary still received gold-bearing session IDs and turn markers. A stricter v2 protocol now removes answers, question type, answer markers, and raw session identities before memory construction. Its development slice must be rerun on a clean commit before the still-sealed holdout can be opened; no LongMemEval claim is restored. ImplicitMemBench's explicit retry-merged check reaches 0.6923666667 with zero failures, but it is not a replacement monolithic fresh Full-300 run. Both therefore remain outside the current-claims table. The underlying reports live under gitignored reports/ and are reproducible from the recorded commands.
Use task-board/00-README.txt for execution order and docs/GoodMemory-Current-Status-and-Evidence.md for claim boundaries.
GoodMemory has three primary product entry points. They are not the only APIs: lower-level surfaces such as goodmemory/host, custom stores, eval tooling, and runtime helpers support these paths. They are the README-level ways to decide how to start.
If you are an agent that wants to give *yourself* durable memory, match one path and run it. Machine-readable versions of this tree live in llms.txt and .well-known/goodmemory.json (a deployed bridge also serves the descriptor at /.well-known/goodmemory.json).
npm install -g goodmemory@0.8.3 && goodmemory setup. Unsure what is already wired? Run goodmemory adopt (add --json for a machine-readable plan): it inspects .claude/, .codex/, and existing MCP config, then prints the exact next command for your environment.goodmemory_get_context (recall) and goodmemory_remember (opt-in write).goodmemory.vibenest.net or self-hosted with goodmemory-http-bridge --recommended (or GOODMEMORY_PROFILE=agent-recommended goodmemory-http-bridge); Python callers use pip install goodmemory-client.The prose paths below expand each option.
Use this when you own the product server and the model call. Install goodmemory in your Node/Bun service, create one memory instance, and pass a stable scope such as userId, workspaceId, sessionId, and optionally agentId.
The request flow is:
recall() for the current scope and query.buildContext() to turn recall hits into a prompt fragment.memory.jobs.enqueueRemember() or remember().feedback(),只显示了开头部分;其余内容请在仓库中阅读